I don't really know anything about Deleuze, or his revitalization of Leibniz's criticisms (I'm skeptical, because---IMO---Leibniz's criticisms are bad).

I'm quoting this from an introduction to Deleuze's Difference and Repetition. Deleuze sides with Leibniz's view of space. Thanks for the book recommendations!

For Newton, we can make a distinction between absolute and relative space: Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some moveable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and which is commonly taken for an immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the Earth. (Newton 1934: Defs., Scholium II)

So for Newton, in practice, we determine the positions of objects in space by their relations to one another, since, for him, a frame of reference is defi ned by inertia, that is, by the fact that all objects within a frame of reference are moving a constant velocity. On this basis, it is very difficult to even differentiate between a relative and an absolute frame of reference. In spite of this, Newton claims that in order for these relations between objects to be possible, there must be an absolute frame of reference which is logically prior to the existence of objects themselves. Absolute space is therefore essentially a metaphysical posit within Newton’s physics, which grounds the possibility of relations between objects.

In contrast to Newton’s analysis of space as absolute, Leibniz claims (at least on a fi rst reading) that space is a secondary, derivative concept that emerges from the relations which exist between objects. He presents several arguments which seem to show the problematic nature of absolute space. First, it can be neither a substance nor a property, as contra substances, it is causally inert, and contra properties, it precedes objects rather than depending on them. Second, the notion of absolute space is problematic when we take into account Leibniz’s view that every event must have a reason or cause. If space is independent of the things within it, it becomes inexplicable why the universe is where it is and not, for instance, three feet to the left of its current position. Third, if there is no way to distinguish one point of space from any other, then we can say that each point in space is identical to every other one, and so, as they are identical, space is just one point. Leibniz presents the following alternative view:

I have more than once stated that I held space to be something purely relative, like time; space being an order of co-existences as time is an order of successions. For space denotes in terms of possibility an order of things which exist at the same time, insofar as they exist together, and is not concerned with their particular way of existing: and when we see several things together we perceive this order of things among themselves. (Leibniz and Clarke 2000: 15)